| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> | 
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Range Types, discrete and/or continuous | 
| Date: | 2010-11-01 20:39:14 | 
| Message-ID: | 1288643954.11114.17.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 20:36 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> > Would you be comfortable writing that '012[3-5]' range as
> > '[0123, 0126)' or something similar?  What benefits do you see to
> > using a range for prefixes versus a regular expression?
> 
> Your proposed syntax would do fine, sure. Something like this is even on
> the TODO list for prefix indexing, but for the internal representation,
> as I think there might be some optimisation potential there. Meanwhile,
> it would be easy enough to accept alternative input syntax.
Interesting example of a situation where the representation can be
optimized. I suspected that this was the case, but perhaps my example
wasn't as compelling:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01842.php
This suggests that there should be some way for the user to specify
their own representation function.
Regards,
	Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2010-11-01 21:02:07 | Re: Complier warnings on mingw gcc 4.5.0 | 
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-11-01 20:32:18 | Re: SR fails to send existing WAL file after off-line copy |